Effective January 1, 2018 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. has merged into, and will now practice law as Houston Harbaugh, P.C. Visit Houston Harbaugh here and learn more about all the ways we can serve you.

COURT FINDS THAT SUBCONTRACTOR NOT THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY TO PRIME CONTRACT

In Linde Corp. v. RKR Hess Assoc., Inc, and Pocono Twsp. No. 4252 CV 2012 (Comm. Pleas Monroe 2015) Judge Harlacher considered the preliminary objections of defendant Pocono Township to the claims asserted by additional defendant subcontractor Gabe's Construction Company ("Gabe's), by which Gabe's sought recovery for breach of contract and under the Prompt Payment Act, based on the theory that Gabe's was a third party beneficiary to the Prime Contract between the Township and plaintiff Linde Corp. ("Linde").

Linde and the Township entered into a prime contract for the performance of certain work. Subsequently, Linde subcontracted Gabe's to perform a portion of that work. The subcontract between Linde and Gabe's apparently had a standard "pay when" or "pay if" paid clause. The court stated that "the subcontract was premised on the occurrence of [the Township] making payment to Linde for the performance of the Prime Contract . . . and that as the result of that payment, Linde would compensate Gabe's for its duties under the subcontract." In its claims against the Township under the Prime Contract, Gabe's asserted its status as an intended third party beneficiary.

The Court analyzed the issue of whether Gabe's came within the definition of a third party beneficiary to the Prime Contract under the test articulated in Guy v. Liederbach, 459 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1983). Initially Judge Harlacher examined the terms of the Prime Contract and determined that no where in that document was there a mention of Gabe's, and therefore under Pennsylvania law, Gabe's could not satisfy either of the prongs of the test articulated in Guy that an intended beneficiary must either: 1. be explicitly mentioned in the contract or document as one to whom the parties intended to confer or third party right, or 2. be a person that the circumstances indicate the promisee intended to give the benefit of the promised performance. In analyzing the second prong of this test, the Court found that it also requires that the party seeking status as an intended third party beneficiary be expressly named in the document.

Interestingly, the Court made these findings and sustained the Township's preliminary objections in spite of an earlier ruling that found that the Township was in fact a third party beneficiary to the subcontract between Linde and Gabe's.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's article "The New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016" was published in the 2016 Fall/Winter edition of USLAW Magazine.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's ed a CLE on the New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 for the Western Pennsylvania chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel

Firm shareholder Alan Miller was named as the 2017 Best Lawyer Environmental Litigator of the Year and also was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Insurance Coverage.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation; firm shareholder Anthony Picadio was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Business Litigation; firm associate Brandon McCullough was named a 2016 Super Lawyer Rising Star in Insurance Coverage.

On May 25, 2016, Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski presented "Voir Dire and Jury Selection" with Honorable Ronald Folina, at the Crowne Plaza Pittsburgh, as part of the National Business Institute's Continuing Education Programs.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath and firm associate led and presented at a 2-hour CLE on "Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA): The New Federal Private Cause of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation."

Firm shareholder Kelly Williams spoke at the USLAW Business to Business Litigation Exchange in San Francisco on Prosecuting and Defending Business Defamation and Commercial Disparagement Claims by or Against Competitors Including Social Media Issues.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski spoke on "Wacky Pennsylvania Construction Laws" at the U.S. Law Network Spring Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes California, which took place on April 7-9, 2016.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski was selected to serve a two year term as Education Coordinator for the Construction Law Section of the U.S. Law Network.

Firm shareholder Bridget Gillespie and firm associate Brandon McCullough served as Regional Editors and Co-Authors of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the DRI Duty to Defend Compendium which was published in February 2016.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is for educational and informative purposes. Neither it nor the website is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. It is not to be taken as legal advice on which you should rely, and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. If you require legal advice, we recommend that you contact a licensed attorney who can provide advice based on your specific factual circumstances, the jurisdiction you are in, and the appropriate law for your situation. Please do not send us confidential information unless we have specifically requested that you do so. To the extent that any prior firm results are discussed, there is no guarantee that such results will be obtained in the future. Finally, other than the PSMN® website, we have no control over the sites that we link to, so we make no representations about the content or quality of these external sites.

Office Location And Contact Information

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., is a Pittsburgh law firm that serves clients primarily in Pennsylvania, but also in other jurisdictions on a special admission basis.